- 17 May 2017 15:40
#14805754
It is not only anonymous but second-hand anonymous, meaning a person told someone who then told the newspaper. The opposition is not interested in the truth.
Hong Wu wrote:I'm a little worried by how thorough the dialogue against Trump is getting when you consider that it's all anonymous sources built upon earlier anonymous sources for context.
Here the NYT is saying they haven't even viewed the memo but someone read it to them and they really trust that guy, sounds pretty ridiculous. Obviously they are leaving themselves an opening for a retraction.
It is not only anonymous but second-hand anonymous, meaning a person told someone who then told the newspaper. The opposition is not interested in the truth.